Giving a choice of education to our students in Malaysian school systems

Malaysian school systems: http://www.globalchildhoods.net/index.php?page=malaysia

We can have many different school systems, as long as they all teach ways to acquire relevant skills and knowledge.

"Educational reforms must be driven by those who want to ensure that our future generations are able to be relevant in a global environment, earn good incomes and contribute to the nation’s prosperity."

THE Johor Sultan’s recent proposal for there to be a single school system for the country became the latest talking point amongst teachers last week. The Sultan’s proposal, among other things, entails the use of English as a medium of instruction.

In the public space, the discussion went off tangent straight away. Some were quick to defend the present system because they said we need to preserve the vernacular schools, which in turn are meant to ensure the preservation of Chinese and Indian culture and their respective mother tongues.

These supporters seemed to suggest that without vernacular schools, the people of these respective ethnic groups would lose their cultures and languages altogether.

There are some primary-level vernacular schools in rural parts of India that are intended for the continued use of their mother tongue. However, students have the flexibility of transferring to English-medium schools at the secondary level. This flexibility enables Indian education to be largely singular in its system, with a wide use of English as medium of instruction.

Unfortunately, our view of vernacular schools is tied to a political idea: that politicians of a particular ethnic group are required to defend these vernacular schools – regardless of their actual usefulness and value to their communities – as an indicator of their care and concern for the welfare of their communities. Education becomes a political tool.

Middle-class parents want the present system to be retained because the approach taken by successive Ministers of Education has essentially been to privatise education. Hundreds of licences for private schools have been issued, and even international schools are now open to locals with the means to afford them for their children.

So this wealthy group does not mind the present system because for them at least, education is now isolated from the mainstream ; and they are thus able to have what some of them believe to be a superior method of teaching children, and imparting the right kind of education.

Others who want a single system insist on vernacular schools being abolished, and in their place “a Malay (national) centric system” where schools can impart lessons on loyalty and patriotism with more vigour. They argue that we still need to instil patriotism, unity and racial harmony in our pupils and students.

They believe that a sufficient amount of indoctrination is necessary to turn our young into “true Malaysians”, while religious classes and adequate prayer halls will shape Malay children into good Muslims (since we now seek to be Syariah-compliant in everything we do).

We can safely say that under the present political setup, no government will dare abolish vernacular schools. So if national schools become more “Malay” and more Islamic, we can expect more vernacular schools to mushroom all over the country, keeping pace with private schools (local and international ) as they seek to attract ever-larger numbers of students whose parents have “no confidence” in the national school system.

We can have as many systems in our schools as we like, as long as the “one” overriding component in any system that matters is the idea that schools are for teaching students to acquire deep knowledge and skills relevant to the present world.

Schools of the 21st century do not exist primarily to build national unity, to foster narrow nationalism, or to protect any mother tongue. They are not designed to make you “a better person” or religious and sin-free, for that matter.

Today’s education is primarily about having the right skills to get jobs, as the effect of globalisation and new artificial intelligence will be taking a lot of our work away, and may ultimately make us all redundant if we are not prepared. In that context, education must be about giving our children relevant, useful and productive skills.

If the characteristics of the national school were to be modelled on those found in Switzerland, Finland or Singapore, for example, (with some modifications, of course), that would be acceptable because their focus is on producing students with skills that are useful in this present environment.

The diversity of available subjects, with options given to parents to decide on issues such as language, can accommodate different aspirations without compromising on quality or the schools’ central mission.

I recently met a Finnish teacher in Helsinki who was proud to tell me that almost all Finnish students speak three European languages, although there is no compulsion to do so in their school system.

According to this teacher, they have to be multilingual because then their job opportunities become much wider. Necessity always produces better education systems and methods.

Mother tongues can be kept alive through their regular use in a modern education system, without having vernacular schools. Let’s face it: having a poor and mediocre Tamil school system with low enrolment will not do much to help preserve the language and culture of the Tamil community. The only people who benefit are Tamil politicians.

Today’s education produces well-rounded children who will get jobs. It’s when they have no jobs that we worry, no matter how well they can speak their mother tongue.

Educational reforms must be driven by those who want to ensure that our future generations are able to be relevant in a global environment, earn good incomes and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.

By Zaid Ibrahim All kinds of everything

Former de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (carbofree@gmail.com) is now a legal consultant. The views expressed here are entirely his own.


Related posts:

Malaysia's vernacular schools not the problem

Those who oppose vernacular schools ... are driven by their desire to produce a society moulded in a way that they desire. Please keep e...

Barking up the wrong tree !!

Chinese language advantage and education in M'sia; Don’t turn it into a political tool!

A new status for Chinese

I often take a long pause when I am asked about what I do in Beijing, especially if the person is from Malaysia. For the last two decades, more than 90% of Chinese Malaysian families send their children to vernacular primary schools. Those who do not read and write some…

Why the US dollar will remain strong despite cheap money at near zero interest rates?

Relative strength: So far, the US dollar has been strong against emerging market currencies, flat against the euro and weakened relative to the yen. – AFP

THE Fed failed to raise interest rates on Sept 21, giving many markets and fund managers a sigh of relief.

Fed chairman Janet Yellen said the case for an increase has strengthened, but decided for the time being to wait for further evidence of continued progress toward the Fed objectives of maximum employment and price stability. Some analysts felt that any Fed rate increases would be seen as favouring one party in the US Presidential elections.

Caution having over-ridden valour, overall stock markets rallied somewhat, while currency markets moved sideways. Going forward, the futures market think that there is a 60% chance of the Fed raising interest rates in December, after the November Presidential elections.

The key question is whether the dollar will strengthen. So far, the US dollar has been strong against emerging market currencies, flat against the euro and weakened relative to the yen.

There are hoards of analysts trying to forecast short-term and long-term exchange rate movements. Exchange rates are determined by the supply and demand in currency pairs, usually between the dollar and the most traded currencies, such as euro, sterling, yen and other liquid currencies (Australian dollar etc). In turn, the supply and demand for foreign exchange would depend on the current account (trade flows) and capital account (financial flows) of the balance of payments.

If one only looked at trade flows, then exchange rate expectations would depend on whether countries are running large current account surpluses or not, on the basis that a surplus country’s currency would strength. On that basis, one would expect that the Euro should strengthen, because the eurozone is now overall running a current surplus of roughly 3% of GDP. Germany alone is runnng a current account surplus equivalent to 8% of German GDP. However, investor nervousness about the sluggish outlook for the eurozone has keep the euro on the weak side.

One reason is that capital flows are now driving the exchange rate, due to large portfolio flows in search of yield and total returns, as financial assets become more globalised. Theoretically, portfolio flows should be driven by covered interest rate parity, meaning that foreign exchange traders arbitrage in spot, forward and futures markets to equalise risk-adjusted interest rates between countries. Hence, expectations of interest rate differentials between countries matter in shaping exchange rate behaviour.

Interest rate behaviour is determined today largely by monetary policy, which is why global markets are particularly nervous about US Fed interest rate adjustments. Since the US dollar is the world’s benchmark currency, with roughly two thirds of global financial assets measured against the dollar, global financial markets move in expectations of future Fed interest rate increases.

The US remains the dominant military and economic power and is consequently the safe-haven currency. Whenever geo-politics become tense, as is the situation currently, the flight is always towards the dollar.

Furthermore, all signs point towards the US economy performing best amongst the advanced economies, despite overall slower growth post-crisis.

There is enough evidence that the US is already reaching full employment levels at 4.9% unemployment rate, with anecdotal evidence that companies are hiring in anticipation of growing consumer confidence.

There is however a disconnect between US recovery and trade growth. The US consumption pattern has changed from consuming durables towards spending on services, such as new apps and digital entertainment. A partial shift towards manufacturing at home also explains why exports to the US have not increased substantially. With global trade growing slower than GDP, emerging markets are not growing due to the traditional cyclical uptick in exports.

The bad news is that historically, a strong dollar has been associated with slower global growth and vice versa. The explanation is that when the dollar is weak, capital flows out to the emerging markets, stimulating trade and investments. When the dollar is strong, capital flows back to the US and if the US is unable to recycle these flows, global growth weakens.

As the taper tantrum in 2013 showed, when the Fed signalled an increase in interest rates, emerging markets suffered huge turmoil of capital outflows, leading to either interest rate increases or sharp devaluations.

The power of the US to recycle global capital flows is critical to global recovery. Unconventional monetary policy in the US, in the form of near zero interest rates, is not working because the transmission mechanism of cheap money to the real economy is not working. Liquidity remains within the central bank-financial market nexus, with relatively slow lending to finance private sector long-term investments. The private sector is also not confident about the future until there are stronger signs of sustained consumer spending. Furthermore, much-needed public sector investments in infrastructure are being constrained by the large debt overhang and toxic politics.

In short, global capital flight to the dollar, with near zero interest rates, will mean global secular deflation. The reason is that zero interest rate dollar holdings have the same deflationary role as gold in the 1930s. Holding gold was deflationary because spending stops as more and more gold hoarding drained liquidity from the market.

Wait a minute. If the Chinese economy is still growing three times faster than the US in GDP terms (6.7% versus 1.8%), shouldn’t the yuan appreciate? Yes, China is running a current account surplus, but capital outflows are currently running about the same level as trade surpluses, so foreign exchange reserves are flat. Many people think that capital outflows indicate that the yuan will remain weak against the dollar until private sector confidence recovers.

The European and Japanese central banks are running negative interest rate policies precisely because with interest rates relatively lower than the dollar, capital flows will induce lower exchange rates, which will hopefully reflate their economies. The Fed has exactly the same fear as the People’s Bank of China in 2009 when China was growing at more than 10% per year.

Higher Fed interest rates would attract higher capital inflows, pushing up the dollar and inducing even higher asset bubbles, with no inflation in sight.

In sum, much will depend whether the US will use more fiscal stimulative policies and less of unconventional monetary policy to revive productivity growth. It looks as if we will have to wait for a new President to make that strategic call. We will know by November,

By Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is Distinguished Fellow, Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong.

Related posts:

Global economic order under threat

Coming global economic crash, threat of WWIII, petitioned 2030 Agenda for a One World Global Government under a New World Order...

 
 Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme!

Mar 5, 2016 ... Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme! Economic Collapse soon? Ponzi schemes and modern finance. Andrew...

 The Age of Uncertainty

Jul 24, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.

Dealing with the new abnormal negative ...

Jun 15, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.

Asians can and must think strategically, not to be dominated by the West 

 

Remembering the legacy of Bandung, Sandakan death and Hiroshima bombing 

 

Can Asia escape global secular stagnation? 

 

Currency Wars: the Unloved Dollar Standard from Bretton Woods to the Rise of China 

 

The Bandung Spirit: strengthering Asian African economic cooperation & legal consultation

Chinese President Xi Jinping has delivered a speech, with the aim of carrying on the Bandung Spirit and promoting the common development ... 

Why not abolishing wars, seeking peace in the 70 years after WW2 & inception of the UN?

Why should an organisation devoted to saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war” make it its business to authorise war? 

Global economic order under threat

Need to ‘civilise’ capitalism

THE world economy is in a much worse-off shape than even many who know had expected, or what central bankers have come to understand.

Whatever growth there is remains paltry and uneven. Deflation was viewed as a strictly Japanese phenomenon. Now it’s a global threat, being revived and updated by Harvard’s Lawrence Summers as “secular stagnation.” The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says 2016 will be the fifth straight year of global growth below 3.7%, its average for nearly two decades before the recent great recession.

G-20 economies (representing 85% of the world economy, comprising most rich nations and major emerging economies) are expected to again downgrade their forecast to below 3% global expansion this year. They are likely to miss the target they had set for themselves in 2014 to lift their combined output by 2% over the IMF’s then forecast for 2018.

In early September, G-20 leaders met in Hangzhou, China, in the wake of Brexit and the rise of populist politics on both sides of the Atlantic with a strong sense of urgency to placate public discontent. Indeed, they have to “civilise’’ capitalism (Australian Prime Minister) as they seek to revive economic growth and address growing public scepticism about the benefits of free trade and growing backlash against globalisation. “Growth has been too low, for too long, for too few” (IMF chief Christine Lagarde).

Hangzhou consensus

This time G-20 leaders were on the defensive, amid a welter of familiar complaints back home on frustratingly slow growth, rising social inequalities and the surge of corporate tax avoidance. Looking back, the summer of 2016 is viewed not as a period of respite but as the moment it became clear that policy solutions from G-20, IMF and major central banks aren’t working well.

They have proved woefully inadequate. As a result, businesses are pessimistic about growth prospects, as reflected in low expectations for long-term interest rates. Yield on German 10-year notes is negative 0.116% p.a. What’s needed is a new approach. There has to be more growth and growth must be more inclusive.

At Hangzhou, the G-20 list of remedies rivals the world economy in its complexities, running beyond 7,000 words (excluding several lengthy appendices) addressing many issues, including immigration, terrorism, energy and Zika virus. Indeed, it risks looking “like an X’mas tree”. It was preceded by a surprising display of co-operation between China and US, who together ratified the Paris climate change agreement.

A long list of problems was on the table: including overstretched central banks, trade disputes, corporate tax avoidance, inequality and the populist backlash against globalisation and free trade. In the end, the Hangzhou consensus reflected an “innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive” approach towards its main goals. It adopted a wide-ranging package of policies based on “Vision” (of innovative, new drivers of growth); “Integration” (forge synergy among fiscal, monetary and structural reform policies); “Openness” (build an open world economy, rejecting protectionism); and “Inclusiveness” (ensure growth promotes the role of women and youth, and generates quality jobs, addresses inequality and eradicates poverty).

All these won’t be enough to get us out of the rut. The real setback remains one of credibility. G-20’s sprawling agenda is filled with items that have little chance of success. Many stakeholders and opinion-makers are unlikely to take them really seriously. Experience shows that G-20 is better off when it focuses. Better stick with a limited agenda that has a high chance of achieving an outcome. Sometimes, more is done by doing less.

As host, China promoted innovation as the core of the G-20 agenda. This is sensible because: (i) the use of monetary and fiscal policies can only achieve so much. In the longer-run, real progress has to depend on improved productivity – getting more out of existing resources; and (ii) overcoming anxiety arising from the use of technologies and artificial intelligence that threaten jobs. Getting G-20 to think collectively about the downside of innovation and fintech can only help. There is then the endorsement of a set of non-binding principles designed to guide governments in devising cross-border investment policies in an effort to revive cross-border investment, which is sagging along with global growth and trade. The intention is good – there is a need to foster a more open, transparent global environment for investment, and ensure national and international rules remain clear, coherent and consistent. No investment, no trade, no growth.

Globalisation

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), i.e. the rich nations’ club, warned last week that growth in world trade is set to lag global growth in 2016, i.e. globalisation as measured by trade intensity has stalled. Other signs are just as worrisome: (i) ratio of world trade to output has been flat since 2008; (ii) volume of world trade stagnated between January 2015 and March 2016; (iii) stock of cross-border financial assets peaked at 57% global GDP in 2007, down by 36% over 2015; and (iv) inflows of foreign direct investment remained well below 3.3% of world GDP reached in 2007.

Indeed, the growing backlash against trade liberalisation as well as recessions in some big commodity producers are adding to the slackening of trade flows and is likely to erode already flagging productivity and ultimately global living standards. All this, at a time of poor economic performance in the rich nations, rising inequality and big shifts in the balance of global power.

So much so, failure to deal with the negative consequences of globalisation has surged into the political agenda of several large nations (including the US) facing forthcoming elections. Worse still, growth is too meagre to generate the jobs that youths expect and to fulfil pension promises for the elderly. Indeed, globalisation has stalled. Does it matter?

Yes it does. Recent history witnessed the first fall in global inequality of household incomes since the early 19th century. Average world real income rose by 120% between 1980 and 2015. The opportunities accorded by global integration should not be dismissed. No man is an island. Globalisation’s failure, however, lies in (a) not ensuring that its gains are not better shared, and (b) just as dismal is failure to assist those adversely affected. But, the net impact on jobs and wages from rising productivity and new technologies has far exceeded rising imports.

Globalisation shouldn’t be made the scapegoat. What’s really needed is better management. I recall Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s main message in his 2002 book Globalisation and its Discontents: the problem is not globalisation but how the process is being managed. The rules of the game has to include measures to “tame globalisation.” Unfortunately, global management didn’t change. Today, the new discontents are bringing home the same message – only more intensely.

Inequality

G-20 leaders in Hangzhou were preoccupied with the need to placate public discontent about the unequal distribution of the benefits of free trade and globalisation. Hence, a lot of talk about people. China’s President Xi Jinping set the tone: “Development is for the people. It should be pursued by the people and its outcome should be shared by the people. This is not just a moral responsibility. It also helps unleash immeasurable effective demand.”

In China, Xi said: “We will make the pie bigger and make sure people get a fairer share of it.” The global Gini coefficient – the economist’s measure of inequality, has raced passed (Xi’s) “alarm level of 0.6, and now stood at 0.7” (the closer it approaches 1, the greater the inequality in income distribution). “We need to build a more inclusive world economy.”

Unfortunately, globalisation is today seen naively as a zero-sum-game (I win, you lose), with a US presidential hopeful arguing that China’s rise has come at the expense of US manufacturing heartlands – reflecting a rising disenchantment with the global economic order. It’s spreading. Last week, France publicly called on Brussels to end trade deal talks between US and Europe, citing a globalisation “without rules, where social models are pit against each other and dragged downward, where inequalities grow.”

This “docile of discontent” is best illustrated by Branko Milanovic’s controversial “elephant chart,” which was created (from 196 household surveys worldwide) by ranking world population (from the poorest 10% to the richest 1%) showing growth in income between 1988 and 2008, i.e. from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of Lehman Brothers.

His global chart traced the distribution of growth in real income as first sloping right up, then down sharply and up again steeply, like an elephant raising its trunk: it shows big income gains at the high middle and very top, with the era of globalisation offering very little or nothing for those in between (at the bottom and in the middle and working classes in the rich nations who are poorer than the top 15% but richer than everyone else; this group seemed scarcely better off in 2008 than they were 20 years before).

The stagnant fortunes of these Trumpian and Brexiteer discontents in advanced economies are squeezed between their own countries’ plutocrats and Asia’s rapidly rising middle-class. It is this dangerous sharp dip in the chart to near zero which reflects those who occupy this dangerous docile. Milanovic’s study showed that (a) Chinese middle-class and the world’s 1% rich have gained handsomely in the era of globalisation; (b) lower middle-class in rich countries have fared poorly; and (c) rising income inequality remains a serious problem.

What then, are we to do

Global growth are revised downwards yet again as its traditional engines of trade and investment sputter. OECD now estimates the world economy would muster growth of only 2.9% this year. I consider this to be optimistic. Worse, potential growth has fallen in both advanced and emerging economies. The rise in income and wealth inequalities exacerbates the glut in global savings (reflecting the global investment slump). This can only lead to lower trend growth. Economists call this “hysteresis”: long-term unemployment erodes workers’ skills and human capital; and because innovation is embedded in new capital goods, low investment leads to permanently lower productivity growth. That’s why structural and market reforms are vital to boost potential growth. This has become critical in Asean, especially Malaysia.

There are no politically easy solutions. I know fiscal policy (especially productive public investment that boosts both supply and demand) remains hostage of high debts and misguided austerity. For now, the world is likely to remain as IMF’s new mediocre, or in Summer’s secular stagnation, or China’s new normal.

Make no mistake. There is nothing healthy or normal about rising inequality in the face of continuing slow economic growth. Worse, it leads to rising populist backlash against trade, migration, globalisation, even technological innovation. Following the old road of relying purely on cheap and plentiful money leads to a dead end eventually.

Policymakers’ renewed focus on the need to make capitalism more inclusive is welcome. But rich nations need to ditch austerity in favour of purposeful fiscal support – emphasising structural supply side reforms. There is no other way to unleash effective demand. The tools are already available. Finally, of course, there is innovation.


By Lin See-Yan

Former banker, Harvard educated economist and British Chartered Scientist, Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of “The Global Economy in Turbulent Times” (Wiley, 2015). Feedback is most welcome; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.


Related posts

Action, not words or empty talk, needed to cure global economy, China tells G20 summit 

 

G20 summit recognizes China's success, a historic starting point for the world, expert said

All in a day’s work: Chinese President Xi Jinping attending the opening ceremony of the B20 Summit ahead of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou. ...